Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2019 20:00:39 GMT
Why is his opinion 'qualified' as opposed to anyone else? Umm, let me think. He is a qualified legal professional involved with international disputes and the prosecution of protagonists, where appropriate. As such has a detailed insight to international, sponsored, interventions. You sit on a financial services desk in Frankfurt. Let me think. I'm sorry, but just because he is a qualified legal bloke in what way does that make his opinion, and it is just his opinion, better than anyone else's? What are you going to suggest next, only people with a Degree should be allowed to either have an opinion, or indeed vote ? Sorry, but I do not sit on a financial services desk in Frankfurt. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 7:36:42 GMT
Umm, let me think. He is a qualified legal professional involved with international disputes and the prosecution of protagonists, where appropriate. As such has a detailed insight to international, sponsored, interventions. You sit on a financial services desk in Frankfurt. Let me think. I'm sorry, but just because he is a qualified legal bloke in what way does that make his opinion, and it is just his opinion, better than anyone else's? What are you going to suggest next, only people with a Degree should be allowed to either have an opinion, or indeed vote ? Sorry, but I do not sit on a financial services desk in Frankfurt. It does not, in anyway. But one thing you always get confused over is that when you instigate a proposition and post it in a debate, it its for you to support it with corroborating evidence. Not me, or anyone else. In this case you have taken a very poorly worded speech and conflated its intent by using a map and data showing EU interventions into a suggestion of proof that indeed the EU is intent on empire building. When challenged your only response is to say I, and in this case Stuart, have no knowledge of EU interventions. As if that, true or false, proves your argument. When I point out that on review of the data you presented it is clear those interventions were either humanitarian or conflict resolution in nature, you offer no proof to the opposite, but just weakly pronounce, "believe what you want" In contrast I shall seek the opinion of someone involved in the criminality in conflict. It will be interesting to say the least, in a compare and contrast with you. More generally though this is always the flaw in your arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Sept 19, 2019 10:29:44 GMT
The EU building an Empire? This has all got a bit out of hand in here hasn't it? Sensationalist nonsense
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 10:37:59 GMT
The EU building an Empire? This has all got a bit out of hand in here hasn't it? Sensationalist nonsense The actual words of Guy addressing the Lib Dem Conference a couple of days ago. How can it be 'sensationalist' when he openly spoke about it? |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Sept 19, 2019 10:43:29 GMT
The EU building an Empire? This has all got a bit out of hand in here hasn't it? Sensationalist nonsense The actual words of Guy addressing the Lib Dem Conference a couple of days ago. How can it be 'sensationalist' when he openly spoke about it? Right so the word once used by this one person is enough for you to hang your hat on. What's special about him nobby? It wouldnt be because it suits the narrative would it? Empire! I do think we are slipping in to the hysterical a bit here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 10:59:58 GMT
The actual words of Guy addressing the Lib Dem Conference a couple of days ago. How can it be 'sensationalist' when he openly spoke about it? Right so the word once used by this one person is enough for you to hang your hat on. What's special about him nobby? It wouldnt be because it suits the narrative would it? Empire! I do think we are slipping in to the hysterical a bit here. Absolutely. This sort of nonsense degrades the whole pro brexit narrative (is that even possible?) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 12:14:40 GMT
The actual words of Guy addressing the Lib Dem Conference a couple of days ago. How can it be 'sensationalist' when he openly spoke about it? Right so the word once used by this one person is enough for you to hang your hat on. What's special about him nobby? It wouldnt be because it suits the narrative would it? Empire! I do think we are slipping in to the hysterical a bit here. Did you watch the short video? |
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,434 
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 19, 2019 12:14:48 GMT
Nobody watching the Court case on TV?
I quite enjoyed the civility of it on Tuesday, made a nice change from the childish narrative I've seen and heard over the past few years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 13:06:04 GMT
Nobody watching the Court case on TV? I quite enjoyed the civility of it on Tuesday, made a nice change from the childish narrative I've seen and heard over the past few years. I can't watch it. It makes my ears bleed ! The case has to be thrown out. It was a political decision to close Parliament, not a legal one. Just because some people didn't like the timing it does not make it unlawful. If the judges do in fact deem it unlawful, then Johnson will just prorogue again, making the whole legal exercise pointless! The mistake the remainers made was not to include this in their Bill. I've said earlier, there are a whole raft of loopholes in their Bill that can be exploited. It's what happens when you rush through Bills like this. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 16:34:33 GMT
Nobody watching the Court case on TV? I quite enjoyed the civility of it on Tuesday, made a nice change from the childish narrative I've seen and heard over the past few years. I can't watch it. It makes my ears bleed ! The case has to be thrown out. It was a political decision to close Parliament, not a legal one. Just because some people didn't like the timing it does not make it unlawful. If the judges do in fact deem it unlawful, then Johnson will just prorogue again, making the whole legal exercise pointless! The mistake the remainers made was not to include this in their Bill. I've said earlier, there are a whole raft of loopholes in their Bill that can be exploited. It's what happens when you rush through Bills like this. The timing is irrelevant. It's the purpose. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 16:37:54 GMT
I can't watch it. It makes my ears bleed ! The case has to be thrown out. It was a political decision to close Parliament, not a legal one. Just because some people didn't like the timing it does not make it unlawful. If the judges do in fact deem it unlawful, then Johnson will just prorogue again, making the whole legal exercise pointless! The mistake the remainers made was not to include this in their Bill. I've said earlier, there are a whole raft of loopholes in their Bill that can be exploited. It's what happens when you rush through Bills like this. The timing is irrelevant. It's the purpose. It normally happens every year. It's standard. This is the longest running session of Parliament since the Civil War. You cannot allow the Domestic Agenda to stop just because of Brexit. Life has to go on. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 16:40:12 GMT
The timing is irrelevant. It's the purpose. It normally happens every year. It's standard. This is the longest running session of Parliament since the Civil War. You cannot allow the Domestic Agenda to stop just because of Brexit. Life has to go on. Correct, absolutely. This is why "The Purpose" is under review. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 16:43:06 GMT
Nobody watching the Court case on TV? I quite enjoyed the civility of it on Tuesday, made a nice change from the childish narrative I've seen and heard over the past few years. The interesting side issue here is the appointment of these Judges in the future. First off, how can closing Parliament be unlawful, when no laws were broken? Next, if the Judges do decide to intervene in what is purely a political decision, then questions will be asked about how they reach their positions. Calls will be made to have them elected, as the people would want to know their political viewpoints before allowing them to sit in judgement. I'm pretty sure our Learned Friends are aware of this. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 16:47:25 GMT
It normally happens every year. It's standard. This is the longest running session of Parliament since the Civil War. You cannot allow the Domestic Agenda to stop just because of Brexit. Life has to go on. Correct, absolutely. This is why "The Purpose" is under review. I'll throw this one your way. What if there are changes made to the WA and Johnson is stopped bringing it back to the House because Bercow will not allow it? We all know Bercow will do anything to stop Brexit, including destroying any attempts with the WA.....However, Bercow's current ruling that the WA cannot be brought back only applies to the current Parliamentary Session. In a new Session, he cannot stop it coming back. Just an example. Don't get me wrong, I hate the WA and it should only be used for bog paper. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 16:55:27 GMT
Correct, absolutely. This is why "The Purpose" is under review. I'll throw this one your way. What if there are changes made to the WA and Johnson is stopped bringing it back to the House because Bercow will not allow it? We all know Bercow will do anything to stop Brexit, including destroying any attempts with the WA.....However, Bercow's current ruling that the WA cannot be brought back only applies to the current Parliamentary Session. In a new Session, he cannot stop it coming back. Just an example. Don't get me wrong, I hate the WA and it should only be used for bog paper. Personally I believe whatever the ruling party wants to present to Parliament, of course it should and will do. Absolutely. To do that and to allow time for proper scrutiny Parliament should be sitting asap. The Speaker is the adjudicator of the constitution, as it applies to Parliament, his personal views are irrelevant. There is only one person who has, is, preventing scrutiny and that is the current Prime Minister. Nobody else. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 17:03:32 GMT
I'll throw this one your way. What if there are changes made to the WA and Johnson is stopped bringing it back to the House because Bercow will not allow it? We all know Bercow will do anything to stop Brexit, including destroying any attempts with the WA.....However, Bercow's current ruling that the WA cannot be brought back only applies to the current Parliamentary Session. In a new Session, he cannot stop it coming back. Just an example. Don't get me wrong, I hate the WA and it should only be used for bog paper. Personally I believe whatever the ruling party wants to present to Parliament, of course it should and will do. Absolutely. To do that and to allow time for proper scrutiny Parliament should be sitting asap. The Speaker is the adjudicator of the constitution, as it applies to Parliament, his personal views are irrelevant. There is only one person who has, is, preventing scrutiny and that is the current Prime Minister. Nobody else. "Personally I believe whatever the ruling party wants to present to Parliament, of course it should and will do. Absolutely. " - It doesn't matter what you believe, but Bercow has ruled that the WA cannot be brought in front of Parliament again during the current Session. That is not my opinion, but fact! You talk about scrutiny, yet you are happy that a group of MP's can propose Law and have it rushed through, without any scrutiny? Nobody from that group has to stand at the dispatch box and explain themselves? They are not subject to media scrutiny. Rushing through Bills into Law only makes for bad Law. Now, as there is no work for the HoC at the moment, just what are they supposed to be looking at? What can they subject to scrutiny in five days that that hasn't been discussed endlessly, and without an answer, for over three years? This Parliament is dead and it needs a GE. |
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,434
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 19, 2019 17:53:26 GMT
Nobody watching the Court case on TV? I quite enjoyed the civility of it on Tuesday, made a nice change from the childish narrative I've seen and heard over the past few years. I can't watch it. It makes my ears bleed ! The case has to be thrown out. It was a political decision to close Parliament, not a legal one. Just because some people didn't like the timing it does not make it unlawful. If the judges do in fact deem it unlawful, then Johnson will just prorogue again, making the whole legal exercise pointless! The mistake the remainers made was not to include this in their Bill. I've said earlier, there are a whole raft of loopholes in their Bill that can be exploited. It's what happens when you rush through Bills like this. I've enjoyed it, shame work got in the way though. What loopholes are there? |
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,434
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 19, 2019 17:55:50 GMT
The timing is irrelevant. It's the purpose. It normally happens every year. It's standard. This is the longest running session of Parliament since the Civil War. You cannot allow the Domestic Agenda to stop just because of Brexit. Life has to go on. In 2017 it was agreed that this session would last for the duration of Brexit, thought to be 2 years. No problem with prorogation in principle, but what can the Government do after that they couldn't before? |
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,434
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 19, 2019 18:01:37 GMT
Personally I believe whatever the ruling party wants to present to Parliament, of course it should and will do. Absolutely. To do that and to allow time for proper scrutiny Parliament should be sitting asap. The Speaker is the adjudicator of the constitution, as it applies to Parliament, his personal views are irrelevant. There is only one person who has, is, preventing scrutiny and that is the current Prime Minister. Nobody else. "Personally I believe whatever the ruling party wants to present to Parliament, of course it should and will do. Absolutely. " - It doesn't matter what you believe, but Bercow has ruled that the WA cannot be brought in front of Parliament again during the current Session. That is not my opinion, but fact! You talk about scrutiny, yet you are happy that a group of MP's can propose Law and have it rushed through, without any scrutiny? Nobody from that group has to stand at the dispatch box and explain themselves? They are not subject to media scrutiny. Rushing through Bills into Law only makes for bad Law. Now, as there is no work for the HoC at the moment, just what are they supposed to be looking at? What can they subject to scrutiny in five days that that hasn't been discussed endlessly, and without an answer, for over three years? This Parliament is dead and it needs a GE. There was scrutiny, what are the stages and debates for? Plenty of media interviews too. If Parliament was sitting there is still plenty to do, several Brexit Bills are now stopped plus others, for example, and Committees would still be working. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 18:42:32 GMT
I can't watch it. It makes my ears bleed ! The case has to be thrown out. It was a political decision to close Parliament, not a legal one. Just because some people didn't like the timing it does not make it unlawful. If the judges do in fact deem it unlawful, then Johnson will just prorogue again, making the whole legal exercise pointless! The mistake the remainers made was not to include this in their Bill. I've said earlier, there are a whole raft of loopholes in their Bill that can be exploited. It's what happens when you rush through Bills like this. I've enjoyed it, shame work got in the way though. What loopholes are there? From my understanding :, No Bills should be passed that force the government into a spending commitment. With previous Brexit Bills, May way 'asked' or she was 'encouraged' to approach the EU for an extension. With the latest Bill it dictates that the PM 'Must' ask for an extension, and he 'must' accept whatever the EU offer. It is an instruction, not a request. Any extension costs over 1 billion per month, which is a spending commitment. Therefore, the Bill can be challenged or even ignored. Next, there is a conflict over the Law. One Law says that we leave the EU on Oct 31st, either with or without a deal. The new Law says that without a deal the PM must accept an extension. Which Law has precedent? For really muddled up thinking, "The best way to bypass the flaw is for MPs to refuse to approve any motion for a WA on or before 19 October. Those who want the Withdrawal Agreement should refuse on the basis that, by voting for it, they may well be delivering No Deal." - Flaw in Benn BillIn other words, even if Johnson comes back with a great WA, they will still vote against it! Marvellous eh. There is also something about the letter to the EU must be delivered by 23:59 on the 19th, which is a Friday night. The EU meeting ends on the 18th, and the UK have to respond to the EU within two calendar days! Something about that for the Lawyers to get their mucky mitts into. There is also something about apparent conflicts between the Benn Bill and the Withdrawal Act. As I said earlier, the Benn Bill wasn't thought through enough. You cannot rush through something that you want to become Law. |
|
